# SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499 "2012-06-27T19:56:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/401 "2012-06-29T14:26:17Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Well, to be _precise_, if it was Obama who actually wrote the legislation, he could have. But that was done by Congress. Nitpicking here, but i would be willing to bet Congress had at best a secondary role in writing this legislation. Top billing would most likely go to insurance company errand boys. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/402 "2012-06-29T14:43:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Nitpicking here, but i would be willing to bet Congress had at best a secondary role in writing this legislation. Top billing would most likely go to insurance company errand boys. I thought it was Mitt Romney. They just did a search-and-replace for MA/USA. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/403 "2012-06-29T14:46:52Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I thought it was Mitt Romney. They just did a search-and-replace for MA/USA. Yes, hence being originally written by insurance industry errand boys. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/404 "2012-06-29T14:49:19Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > [Just to review](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics%2F2009%2F09%2Fobama-mandate-is-not-a-tax%2F&ei=dHfsT6nsNI-k8gTX44G9BQ&usg=AFQjCNHebcHCNuBFvlX92h2m0RGAUkSZsQ): > > I’m pretty disappointed in the outcome. I guess my taxes are going up, because I refuse to buy something I don’t want. It doesn’t appear you understood that exchange. There are two issues: 1. The mandate that you pay buy insurance 2. The “penalty” if you do not Obama is arguing that the payments for insurance are not a tax, and that makes perfect sense. You are getting back something back in value for payments made to a private company. It makes no sense to call that a tax any more than the payments for car insurance are a tax. The penalty if you don’t buy insurance is another thing. You can call that a tax if you want. The SCOTUS said that it falls under congress’ _authority to tax_ but it is not an _actual tax_ because it is not subject to the anti-injunction act. So there you have it: it is both a tax and not a tax according to the SCOTUS. The statement that we are “raising taxes” because of the $700 penalty if you do not purchase insurance is clearly misleading. Even if you want to call the penalty itself a tax, it only applies to people who do not buy insurance. If you already have insurance you are clearly not being taxed, if you do not have insurance and can not afford it then you can get help to buy it and not pay the “tax”, if you can afford insurance and choose not to do so, shifting the burden of your catastrophic care onto the rest of us, then I have no problem calling that a tax. We can call it the “asshole tax”. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/405 "2012-06-29T14:54:55Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > The SCOTUS said that it falls under congress’ _authority to tax_ but it is not an _actual tax_ because it is not subject to the anti-injunction act. So there you have it: it is both a tax and not a tax according to the SCOTUS. I don’ t think that’s quite what it said. But whatever. > [@](#): > > The statement that we are “raising taxes” because of the $700 penalty if you do not purchase insurance is clearly misleading. Even if you want to call the penalty itself a tax, it only applies to people who do not buy insurance. If you already have insurance you are clearly not being taxed, if you do not have insurance and can not afford it then you can get help to buy it and not pay the “tax”, if you can afford insurance and choose not to do so, shifting the burden of your catastrophic care onto the rest of us, then I have no problem calling that a tax. We can call it the “asshole tax”. Yep. Let’s just call it a tax. You get a tax credit if you have insurance. Simple. Now that it has passed Congress, we can use the evil “t” word. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/406 "2012-06-29T14:55:57Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Nitpicking here, but i would be willing to bet Congress had at best a secondary role in writing this legislation. Top billing would most likely go to insurance company errand boys. Doesn’t matter. Congress voted for it. Congress is 100% responsible for it. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/407 "2012-06-29T14:59:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Congress voted for it. Congress is 100% responsible for it. It matters if somebody says congress wrote the bill. Someone did. So i corrected them. Thanks for your input, though. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/408 "2012-06-29T15:08:31Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It matters if somebody says congress wrote the bill. Someone did. So i corrected them. Thanks for your input, though. Okay. I was responding to your possible implication, not just the fact. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/409 "2012-06-29T15:11:50Z")
If there was a link earlier in the thread to the [actual Supreme Court decision](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf), I’m afraid I missed it. In any event, there it is. All 198 pages of it. ETA: For those interested, the executive summary (syllabus) is only six pages long. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/410 "2012-06-29T15:13:12Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > It doesn’t appear you understood that exchange. There are two issues: > > 1. The mandate that you pay buy insurance > 2. The “penalty” if you do not There is no mandate to buy health insurance. There is just a tax on persons who can and refuse to buy health insurance so that those persons will have an incentive to buy it. But considering that there’s no criminal penalty for not paying it, the IRS can’t collect it unless you have a refund, and the penalty is far less than most people pay in health insurance it’s a weak incentive. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/411 "2012-06-29T15:20:03Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay. I was responding to your possible implication, not just the fact. There was no implication other than congress is and was beholden to insurance company concerns. Are you of the belief that it doesn’t matter who writes our legislation? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/412 "2012-06-29T15:25:39Z")
Can any of the board’s legal eagles explain to me why the Medicaid part of the decision wasn’t a blatant bit of poaching on Congress’ power to pass and repeal legislation? As I understand it, Roberts basically said that it was OK for the law to say to the states, “you don’t get **new** Medicaid funds if you don’t participate in the Medicaid expansion,” but it wasn’t OK for Congress to say, “you lose [the Medicaid funds **you’re already getting** if you don’t participate in the Medicaid expansion.” Further, as best as I can tell, he’s saying that if Congress had _initially constructed Medicaid_ in the form that it was after passage of the ACA, that would have been Constitutional. It was just the route taken to that otherwise Constitutional state that was the problem. Brad DeLong points out that Congress could have circled around this by repealing Medicaid in one section of the ACA, then reinstating it with this change in the next section. (Repeal and replace, anyone? :)) [Kevin Drum responds](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/what-obamacare-decision-means-future) that this would be such an obvious bit of sophistry that it would get struck down too if a future Congress tried it. But ISTM that that demonstrates the extent to which Roberts poached on Congress’ turf here. _Of course_ Congress has the power to pass or repeal any legislation it wants to; and amending is inherently a combination of passing and repealing. It’s almost as if Roberts is forcing a variant on _stare decisis_ to Congress: if they’d passed this legislation as is, then everything would have been hunky-dory, but they’ve set a precedent by passing it in a different form, and they’ve got to honor that precedent. Until shown otherwise, I have to regard this as nonsense. Roberts just invented this idea out of thin air, AFAICT. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/413 "2012-06-29T15:29:04Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There was no implication other than congress is and was beholden to insurance company concerns. Are you of the belief that it doesn’t matter who writes our legislation? Yes, it doesn’t matter who writes our legislation. All that matters is what it says, and who votes for it. Yes, this would indicate that Congress is beholden to insurance company concerns. That’s true. But it doesn’t mean that insurance companies somehow control Congress or that Congress has no power to say no to insurance companies. Congress is responsible for all legislation it passes. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/414 "2012-06-29T15:43:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes, it doesn’t matter who writes our legislation. > > All that matters is what it says, and who votes for it. > > Yes, this would indicate that Congress is beholden to insurance company concerns. That’s true. But it doesn’t mean that insurance companies somehow control Congress or that Congress has no power to say no to insurance companies. Congress is responsible for all legislation it passes. That’s all. The insurance companies controlled the content of the legislation. That is what matters. They will reap benefits at the expense of the public. With the \*aid \*of congress they succeeded in meeting their goals. It doesn’t matter if congress has the theoretical power to say no to insurance companies because they did not exercise it when the opportunity presented itself. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/415 "2012-06-29T15:46:55Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They will reap benefits at the expense of the public. And all the public gets out of it is the health care. ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/416 "2012-06-29T15:50:48Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > We can call it the “asshole tax”. So, SCOTUS says the ACA only covers proctology? Interesting … ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/417 "2012-06-29T15:51:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > **The insurance companies controlled the content of the legislation.** That is what matters. They will reap benefits at the expense of the public. With the \*aid \*of congress they succeeded in meeting their goals. It doesn’t matter if congress has the theoretical power to say no to insurance companies because they did not exercise it when the opportunity presented itself. Do you have any proof that insurance companies controlled the content of the legislation? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/418 "2012-06-29T15:56:34Z")
What most folks know about the ACA you could fit in 72 Font Bold letters on the top of a gnat’s kneecap. I bet most folks have no idea that there is actually signifcant tax credits for both individual taxpayers and small businesses. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/419 "2012-06-29T15:58:26Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The insurance companies controlled the content of the legislation. That is what matters. No, Congress did. > [@](#): > > With the \*aid \*of congress they succeeded in meeting their goals. Not just “aid.” Congress is completely responsible for legislation. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter if congress has the theoretical power to say no to insurance companies because they did not exercise it when the opportunity presented itself. “Theoretical?” Is if it was forced to pass the bill? Never mind. My point is that Congress is responsible. Who wrote the legislation is immaterial to that. If you’re suggesting that Congress sided with insurance companies by passing a law it wrote (assuming that’s true) then sure. If you’re suggesting that this is somehow corrupt or evil, it’s not. That’s the distinction I’m making. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/420 "2012-06-29T15:59:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They will reap benefits at the expense of the public. So? If the public gets its money’s-worth, it’s a good deal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=22)